tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC May 22, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
be some underlying privilege or privilege. there is a private policy involved. all of those particular grounds, i guess, would have i think a not a very good chance in court if those sort of defenses are put forth in a trial. >> william lawrence, thank you very much for joining us tonight, really appreciate it. >> thank you, you're welcome. >> and that is tonight's last word. tonight, president trump gets angry, shows up in the rose garden with stats on poster board that someone found on the web and now he's saying, we the people won't get any new big ticket items as long as the democrats are investigating him. it was nancy pelosi who apparently triggered the president accusing him of a cover-up, a real charge that brought about the angry reaction. and more bad news for the
president's tax returns on two different fronts. and amid the talk of impeachment and the lashing out, remember, please, this was infrastructure day at the white house as "the 11th hour" gets underway on a wednesday night. good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters in new york. day 853 of the trump administration. what was supposed to be an honest to goodness meeting about our nation's infrastructure turned into a showdown between the president and democrats and then just a plain show in the rose garden as the president had at it. the president started his day with a barrage of messages featuring the familiar words, illegal witch hunt and no collusion, no obstruction, woven into his objections to congressional inquiries. as that was going organization speaker pelosi was holding a closed door meeting with her increasingly boisterous, shall we say, house democrats about said investigations.
nbc news reporting pelosi did not mention impeachment in the room but did say that trump's white house was engaged in a quote, cover up, a point she repeated in front of cameras and microphones right after the meeting. >> we believe that no one is above the law including the president of the united states. and we believe that the president of the united states is engaged in a cover-up. >> so speaker pelosi, chuck schumer, along with other democrats, went over to the white house for that previously scheduled meeting on infrastructure. trump arrived late. he berated pelosi with her cover up comments and then stormed out of the meeting after three minutes, shaking no hands in the process. the house majority leader steny hoyer was there when it happened. >> when we walked into the cabinet room, it was different. the curtains were drawn on the so that's kind of funny. the president was about ten
minutes late coming in. what i noticed was there was no chair set for where he regularly sits. so there is no doubt in my mind that this was a show. clearly had no intention of going around the room as he usually does and shaking hands. but stood at one end of the cabinet table, closest to the door leading to the oval office and said, nancy pelosi has accused me of cover-up. there is no cover-up. i'm not covering up. and therefore, i'm not going to proceed. i'm not going through with this meeting. >> so after that scene, the president then came out and appeared in the rose garden which had already been set up for an announcement. even though it was billed as impromptu. the president was ready with his talking points. >> instead of walking in happily into a meeting, i walk into look at people that have just said
that i was doing a cover-up. i don't do cover-ups. i walked into the room and i told senators schumer, speaker pelosi, i want to do infrastructure. i want to do it more than you want to do it. but you know what? you can't do it under these circumstances. so get these phony investigations over with. this meeting was set up a number of days ago. at 11:00. all of a sudden, i hear last night, they're going to have a meeting right before this meeting to talk about the "i" word. the "i" word. can you imagine? >> trump had prepared visual aids during his statement and abc news reporter pointed out the president's numbers graphic appeared to be derived from one created at her network. it also appeared to be missing the second page. that's the one that lists indictments, charges, guilty pleas and prison sentences of trump associates. trump also brought along his own
handwritten notes in sharpie along with him as this image captured, and here is how one of his home town newspapers, new york daily news, sums up the day we just witness. this afternoon, nancy pelosi who says she remains focused on pursuing investigations instead of the i-word, impeachment, didn't appear to be reconsidering that approach to confronting the president. >> this president is obstructing justice and he is engaged in a cover-up. and that could be an impeachable offense. >> so in a letter to her fellow house democrats, just this evening, she wrote this and we quote. sadly the only job the president seems to be concerned with is his own. he threatened to stop working with democrats on all legislation unless we end oversight of his administration and he had a temper tantrum for us all to see. while all of that was taking place, there was indeed more news in the investigation.
surrounding this president. a second federal judge sided with house democrats and said -- also, lawmakers in new york state approved a bill that will allow congress to obtain trump's state tax returns. the justice department and the house intelligence committee agreed on a deal to allow members to see more of the unredacted material. and mueller's search warrants and his investigation of michael cohen have become public. "new york times" and "washington post" report they show how quickly mueller's team began focusing on cohen. looking at his efforts to profit from his ties to president trump as well as his extensive contacts with the u.s. based investment company linked to a major russian business mogul. with all of that in mind, here for our lead-off discussion, nancy cook, white house reporter for politico who was one of the reporters in the rose garden
earlier today, alexi mckamen, politics reporter for axios, jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and pentagon, as well as former chief counsel for the house intel committee. good evening to you all. nancy, i would like to begin with you, after what the leader of the free world just put out at 10:28 p.m. tonight. in a letter to her house colleagues, nancy pelosi said president trump had a temper tantrum for us all to see. this is not true. i was purposely very polite and calm much as i was minutes later with the press in the rose gardens. can be easily proven. it is all such a lie. so nancy, what did it look like to you in real-time and then filling in what we've since learned about it, describe the entire scene. >> well, it was sort of chaos at the white house this morning. a bunch of cameras were setting up outside of the, on the north lawn waiting for democratic leaders to come for this infrastructure meeting and then suddenly it was announced that press should gather at this other area because there was
going to be something at the rose garden. so it was a very confusing moment for white house reporters. we were expecting one thing and everyone was suddenly ushered into the rose garden for this impromptu monologue by the president. and we thought the day would be consumed with infrastructure talks but it was the president taking this whole new tact on the investigations. and basically, threatening that he would not pass legislation with democrats unless they dropped these inquiries. and he went on for ten minutes or so and then abruptly left. and i was told by white house officials that basically, he had heard that pelosi had met earlier this morning about impeachment and she had said that trump had engaged in some sort of cover-up on the russia investigation. some of his aides flagged that for him. and he quickly decided to have this rose garden event. it was a knee jerk reaction to that. and here we are. that ended up dominating the day instead of talking about bipartisan legislation or anything like that. >> i have a reading for you.
this is zeke miller, jonathan at a.p. trump himself has expressed a leeriness of what he calls the i-word. he told confidantes he doesn't like discussing impeachment. yet advisers have found that he constantly talks about it. often veering there mid-conversation to express worry or frustration at the prospect of it. in one meeting with pelosi, trump couldn't help himself and blurted out a question asking if she was planning to impeach him. though trump was worried that it would be the first line of his political obituary, even though he was confident of being saved by the senate. those around him think it may be the best thing that could happen to his re-election campaign. alexi, i know many people are of that mind. any reporting you care to add? >> certainly we can tell from the president's behavior that he is worried. not only about the barrage of investigations coming his way, which was reflected in him
threatening to stonewall congress from doing their job unless they stop investigating him on all fronts. we also know that he's so afraid of impeachment, he won't even say the actual word. he is turning it into a sort of dirty word by referring to it as the i-word. and look, it is no secret that republicans, even some democrats think impeachment is so divisive that it could ultimately hurt democrats' prospects in the 2020 election and help republicans in the re-election efforts. i think it will fire up the president's base, however small it might be. but i think that is something the democrats, especially nancy pelosi, are considering for the eventual democratic nominee because at the end of the day, part of impeachment comes down to timing. they have to make sure it is not interfering with the messages they're trying to get across for the 2020 election. >> a good point to be made here. jeremy bash, the president declared today, i don't do cover-ups. it was immediately asked where the payment to stormy daniels fits in that policy. second question, where is
pelosi's stock in your view, considering the kind of roiling in her caucus tonight? >> i think it is a good point. presidents swear an oath. the only oath delineated in our constitution and presidents are required to state that they will faithfully execute the duties of the office. if the president wants to stand there in the rose garden in front of american people and say i won't be president. i won't execute my responsibilities. it is a form of auto impeachment. i think in some ways, the president has impeached himself. he is removing himself from the duties of the office and in fact i think speaker pelosi is right to point out, if they cannot work with a president, not much work will get done. >> and jeremy, on these various investigations, do you think the president understands the delineations between branches of government? >> i think he is in a tiff right now with the article one branch congress. it is really the article three branch, the judiciary, which
will cost them most trouble. we saw earlier in the week a ruling by a district court judge in the district of columbia. today a ruling by a district court judge in new york. both of those cases will quickly be appealed. in both cases, the judges ruled against the president and said that documents did have to be produced about the president's finances to congress. so the judiciary will be closing on the president. maybe even faster than congress will. >> new numbers from a monmouth poll. this is interesting. just as a take on american attitudes on this, should mueller himself testify? yes, 73-20. what is your latest reporting? is it doj where he is still on the pay roll that is either making it tough or difficult or impossible? >> well, i think it is the administration that is making it difficult and they want to put up as many road blocks with all of these people testifying on the hill, as well as any inquiries. but i think that mueller himself
has been very reluctant to put himself out there. i think him and his associates have always wanted the report to speak for itself. they didn't want to draw conclusions on whether or not trump obstructed justice. and i think that mueller and his team have tried to be very careful to not get drawn into what is a very partisan warfare over what trump did and did not do in office and whether or not he abused that office. >> and back to this question of testimony. for whatever reason, if we don't hear from bob mueller, what does that do to the public case that is made in the mueller report going forward? >> we still have volume ii which the special counsel said clearly in ten instances, the president did not not obstruct justice. he stated it as a double negative. the clear implication is the president broke the law and but for that opinion the
criminal charges. >> let's talk about the work to be done as a nation. will anything get done? this after all was supposed to be a legit workday. it is not as if our country can't name infrastructure, construction projects that need doing, and urgently. will we see any of it? >> i'm old enough to remember president trump referring to laguardia as a third world country and campaigning on the fact he would get infrastructure done for the country and make america more beautiful by way of all these infrastructure plans and proposals. it seems like infrastructure week, or day as it was today, it is infrastructure week in name only. when i talk to democrats on the hill, staffers and aides and members, they say this is president trump who is unwilling to accept that he is facing a democratically controlled congress. it was his first time to the negotiating table with democrats controlling the house and he simply threw a temper tantrum as pelosi called it and he is unwilling to negotiate. we've seen the ways under president trump, democrats and
republicans have worked together to craft bipartisan legislation. they feel good about it. different groups of folks have tried to do this. they've taken for the president to be signed and he vetoes it at the very end because he doesn't like one part of it. not enough money for the border wall or something else. so until he is ready to negotiate with congress and let them do their jobs, i don't see how bipartisan packages or legislation can get done. the president only wants things his way. >> a friendly reminder to all, it is wednesday. great thanks to our lead-off panel. we greatly appreciate you all being here with us. coming up for us, two more big setbacks today. we referenced for the concerted white house effort to keep the president's taxes out of the hands of congress. and later, an important lesson thanks to one of his 20th century predecessors, as "the 11th hour" is getting started on a wednesday night.
did you know comcast business goes beyond fast with a gig-speed network. complete internet reliability. advanced voice solutions. wifi to keep everyone connected. video monitoring. that's huge. did you guys know we did all this stuff? no. i'm not even done yet. wow. business tv. cloud apps and support. comcast business goes beyond at&t. start with internet and voice for just $59.90 a month. it's everything a small business owner needs. comcast business. beyond fast.
do you think the american people have a right to know what's in those tax forms? >> no, i don't. presidents are not required to. and the american public knew that he didn't release them before they voted for him. >> so why haven't you complied with chairman neal's request? >> because i think that would be unlawful. >> treasury secretary steve mnuchin is defending his decision to block the release of trump's tax returns. during his testimony on capitol hill, he dismissed an internal irs memo first obtained by the "washington post" which
concluded trump address quote, tax returns must be given to congress unless the president invokes executive privilege. he said it doesn't apply in this situation and he said he hasn't talked to the president about his taxes, not at all of not one bit. meanwhile, in new york state, they've passed a law to ends run native new yorker donald trump. "the new york times" puts it this way. the new york legislation which is expected to be signed by governor andrew cuomo, a third term democrat and regular critic of mr. trump's policies and behavior, would authorize state tax officials to release the president's state returns to any one of three congressional committees. since trump is a new york resident and his business is based here, his state returns would include much of the same information as those federal returns. congress is trying to get their hands on it. meanwhile, federal judge ruled late today, he'll allow congress
to subpoena trump financial records from both deutsche bank and capital one. nbc news has learned two other banks, wells fargo and td bank have already cooperated. it is a lot to cover. with us to talk about it, mimi rocca, for the southern district of new york, from the pace university school of law, and dan alexander returns, reporter for forbes, covering all things trump. good evening and welcome to you both. mimi, i hope you brought your legal mind because i need it. we have three elements. we have the deutsche bank, capital one, we have, i had to take notes here. the new york state effort. and we have the draft letter inside the irs. put this all together. does it mean that congress and by extension the public, will have any understanding of the president's tax returns sooner rather than later? >> yes, it does. that's the short answer.
and really, you can sort of put some of these other things aside for a moment. the first thing to look at is the law which says that the irs shall turn them over. it doesn't say shall if there's a legislative purpose. it doesn't say maybe or under certain circumstances. in the law, to most people, shall means shall. in the law, it really has a certain meaning and a certain weight. and judges refer to that kind of language all the time. like in bail statutes. it says i shall remand someone. that means i have no discretion. they don't have discretion. that's going to be a winning argument if and when that gets litigated in court. then you go to the next layer. congress has served a subpoena on the irs. we now know from the court cases, the judges are over whelmingly and very loudly and
very definitively saying congress has a right to this information as long as they state some legislative purpose. both of these opinions were sort of the legal equivalent of, are you kidding me? get out of my courtroom. this is a joke. >> i'm sensing in you a turn that the law may be working toward good purposes here. >> well, yes. i and others have had faith that once this got to the courts, the positions that have been taken by the trump administration with respect to all of these subpoenas, and we can separate them out a little bit and some are more ludicrous than others. but overall this blanket -- the courts will say, no, i'm not responding to any subpoenas. so they look at the pattern. and yes, i have faith that the courts will follow the law and the law is on the side of congress here. >> all right. because we don't often return to this very basic question, help us out. what is it that the president doesn't want congress and/or the
american people to see? >> it's the big question. a couple years ago i was in las vegas with phil ruffin, one of donald trump's best friends, a fellow billionaire. he said look, if i were in his position i wouldn't want to release these either. my tax returns too look like a tower. and who knows what will be in there? if you have a bunch of tax nerds in there, who knows what they'll find? a couple years later, michael cohen is testifying in front of congress and he says the same thing. so you have two people very close to trump giving virtually the same answer saying if you have a ton of people looking over this really, really carefully, they're probably going to find something. and that's what trump is worried about. >> two federal judges in two days, as you said, kind of breaking the way of the law. we also know the federal system. not as well as you do. layer upon layer, it seems, of mechanisms to delay things. the court of appeals and so on.
>> sure. it is not going to be lightning speed. there is no immediate gratification here other than knowing and seeing that oh, wait, when a court, when a judge looks at this, they rule on the side of the law and they write these very good decisions, frankly. there is a reason the judge today cited the first judge and the next judge will cite them. they're going to give each other deference and their well written opinions. and these judges decided, these extremely quickly. i think it's going to go to -- the court of appeals will take the appeal up very quickly. even quickly in the courts still means months. so we are not talking about tomorrow or next week. but it's not going to be years, i don't think. especially because i don't think these are very close questions of law. >> you mentioned to one of our producers not to forget the folks whose advertising tag line is, what's in your wallet? capital one bank, which let's not forget is right here alongside deutsche bank.
why? >> it is a place where donald trump has a lot of money. he has at least $50 million in cash in capital one. the thing that people forget is that not only are they his bank but also his tenants. capital one is paying about a million dollars to rent a place a couple blocks from here, 59th street and park avenue. so there is a lot of things going on with capital one and trump and certainly they have a a lot of information. maybe not quite as much as deutsche bank. >> thank you very much of that's why we wanted to have you on and hear you out. our thanks. coming up for us, some folks struggled for words in trying to describe what was going on in the rose garden today. standing by for us is a pulitzer prize winner. who actually happens to have the best words, so we'll ask him when "the 11th hour" continues.
welcome back. president trump's frustration with a growing number of congressional investigations on full display today. he declared on twitter, quote, you can't investigate and legislate simultaneously. it just doesn't work that way. well, usa today reporter gregory was quick to point out, even during the watergate hearings, the 93rd congress passed and
quickly signed highways act, the rehabilitation act of 1973, the endangered species act, budget act of 1974, and the war powers resolution over the president's veto. all these laws still exist in some form today. on a night like this, we're so fortunate to be joined by the pulitzer prize winning author and historian, jon meacham. notably he is the co-author of a book called impeachment and american history. i am told by a reliable source, you have arrived with a quote from one george mason. >> and who else, i would submit, would bring this to you? of a wednesday? and i know that's exciting for you and everybody else. george mason in the constitutional convention said, who shall be above justice? and the last person on earth who can be above justice is the person who has the capacity to do most extensive injustice. it was a debate about
impeachment in the beginning between james madison and edmond randolf and george mason trying to decide what would end the republican system of checks and balances? what would the impeachment function be? it is inherently political as we've discussed. it has been used for political purposes through the years. one of the things that came to a head today, i think, particularly with the case where the president of the united states walks out of a meeting with those who are empowered in the constitution under article one and says i won't work with you, at some point you have to begin to seriously consider if you are those article one folks, to what extent is the political situation such that you had a constitutional duty to fulfill
what was debated and decided upon between those founders so long ago. and it strikes me, and it is easy for me to say, i don't have to face the voters, but it strikes me if were a member of house of representatives, i would be inclined to at least have hearings on impeachment. given that the president, we have evidence of attempted obstruction and we also have the political box checked which is, he's not in fact, he's saying he's not going to do his job because people are investigating him. and that's a fundamental prima facie violation of the rule of law. >> so put another way, we americans who will not be the recipients of improved interstate highway systems and new tunnels and bridges and airports, we are being, that's being withheld from us. he is not fulfilling his role as president is the view, and that's what congressional democrats could operate on? >> absolutely. it is very interesting. if you're keeping score at home.
that speaker pelosi, i think, it was that this week that he's not obeying his oath of office. that to me was a very important political moment. because the speaker has been fairly careful about not wanting to proceed on impeachment because of a political understanding which we can argue about. but there is this oath of office argument that he is not, defending the constitution. in fact, is not, at least, threatening to not execute his duties here. this reminds me, nothing less, and obviously, nixon is top of mind for everybody. but this is really andrew johnson. this is really 101 years ago. 151 years ago. andrew johnson gave speeches where he attacked congress. he lashed out about conspiracy theories. he really did. in fact, many of the articles of impeachment against andrew
johnson was congress listing the attacks he made on them that weren't entirely dissimilar from the ones we've seen today. so i think a lot of folks, if they can stand it, should do a little reading on what happened with andrew johnson, what happened with nixon. i suspect we're pretty close here. >> this is why we like to regularly check if with our friend jon meacham on where we are presently. 11:35 eastern time on a wednesday night. jon, thank you, as always, for coming on the broadcast. coming up for us, more than 100 years ago, another president was embroiled in a legal dispute. veteran lawyer, legal analyst, and all around tv guy dan abrams writes about teddy roosevelt's little known court battle. a story you'll want to hear. he is with us when we come back.
this whole thing was a takedown attempt at the president of the united states. and honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for the way you reported so dishonestly. not all of you, but many of you. >> as the president ramps up his fight with house democrats and as you saw members of the news media, he was dealt another blow in federal court today. federal judge ruled that bank and capital one can in fact hand over trump's financial documents in response to congressional subpoenas. trump's lawyers signaled they would appeal this ruling. saying mr. trump has a long history with deutsche bank, the only main stream financial institution consistently willing to do business with him after a series of defaults left other lenders facing huge losses. since 1998, the bank has lent him a total of $2 billion.
and he owed them more than $300 million at the time he was sworn in as president. the bank is by far his largest creditor. here with us tonight is a familiar face around these parts, dan abrams. for starters, he used to be an on air host on these cable waves and he used to be the boss here. these days he hosts a show we'll get to in the next segment. he is the chief legal analyst cross town at abc news, founder of abrams media, and happens to be co-author of the book i hold in my hand. theodore roosevelt for the defense. the courtroom battle to save his legacy. welcome back. >> mr. williams. great to be back. >> before we get to teddy, let's talk about donald. if you were doing your daily trade on these airwaves, on this broadcast, what subject would you have pitched yourself on to come and talk about tonight that you deem most important in the
last 24 to 48 hours? >> you just mentioned the deutsche bank ruling. you can't do that in isolation though. that's now the second ruling that has come in that basically said, not just trump doesn't win on the argument of trying to prevent congress from getting access to certain financial documents, but both courts have almost mocked the arguments that the trump team has made. basically saying, it is not even close as a legal matter. that has got to be concerning. it's not surprising. because i think that most legal analysts will tell you that the trump team does not have a very strong argument. they have a terrible argument on the tax returns and they have a relatively weak argument when it comes to preventing the disclosure of other financial documents. as we go on, some of the arguments get a little stronger. you talk about executive privilege on certain aspects of don mcgahn's testimony. but on the issue of documents and tax returns, this is a tough
go for the trump team and it really does feel like they're trying to run out the clock. >> do you think that's what we were looking at today when he walked into the rose garden? in the issues this guy is facing, this may be the one that pierces that inner layer? >> i think this will give us more information. i think that he's more concerned about his inner sanctum testifying. look, there was an enormous article in the "new york times" a year ago. all about his taxes from the '80s and '90s and it went into great detail. all the shenanigans going on. and it fell and it did not make much of a difference. there was other stuff. >> we were busy. i remember. >> the question becomes, let's assume we get his tax returns. let's assume there is really bad stuff in there. is anyone going to care? i think that the real issue is going to be the people who were with him, the people who know
him. what did he say? what did he do? i think he is more concerned about preventing them from testifying. i think he knows his tax returns will get out. he won't be able to prevent them from getting out forever. it is a question of when. >> can we talk about your friend teddy. >> please. >> he was so many things. he was the author of 45 books in his spare time. he was a dynamo, he was a new yorker. why, dan abrams, and your co-writer, writing about teddy roosevelt? >> my co-author david fisher and i found the transcript of this case. and imagine this. the former president of the united states testifying for eight days, undergoing a vicious cross-examination from a lawyer who dislikes him and disagrees with him and is trying to mock him. this is one of the most iconic presidents the country has ever had.
we don't imagine him in this way. we think about our iconic presidents, we think about speeches they've made, or writings. this is unvarnished. this is theodore roosevelt, word for word from the transcript, defending himself and his legacy. and it is fascinating stuff. so what we did is we took this transcript and tell the story, surrounding that trial that at the time was huge news around the country. but somehow has become a footnote to history. >> the part i got to last night. he casually tosses off the fact that he hired 40,000 people through patronage into the u.s. government. >> yep. >> and it is another line in testimony. >> and there were also, there was questions about all sorts of campaign donations that were made to him. and on cross-examination, they go through each and every donation that was made. these are the same sorts of issues that come up today. that is the striking thing about this trial. you read this book and we read all the 3,000 plus pages of the transcript. and it resonates.
and you say, wait, we're still talking about those same issues. and the reason roosevelt got sued is because he accused a party boss of being corrupt. >> imagine that. >> right? and back then, corrupt? that's the entirety of the libel. having teddy roosevelt on the stand, and franklin roosevelt actually testified in his defense. so it is a fascinating read. i think it was so much fun and so interesting to work on because so few people knew about it. >> so from donald to teddy to dan, the third there, dan, has agreed to stay with us. coming up, we'll talk about dan's other line of work. it just happens to be something of an addiction for viewers across the country when they are not watching us at 11:00 eastern time on week nights.
your head wants to do one thing... but your gut says not today. if your current treatment isn't working... ask your doctor about entyvio®. entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract, to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio® has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach.
we are back with dan abrams. you may have seen him working at his other job. he happens to be the host of the hit show "live pd" on a & e. here's a sampling. >> there it is. there it comes. >> they're coming to you now. it's that vehicle. >> they got him spiked. >> go! >> get in, get in, get in. >> we got him. we just got to watch. once they do come to a stop, we'll see them bail out. the vehicle may be abandoned. we got four, four, it looks like four males running north. >> and that's just a small sampling of this broadcast.
what has made this take off the way it has taken off? >> i think it is that we are showing the beginning, middle, and end of policing. up to this point, you and i were talking about this. we in the news business tend to show and talk about officer-involved shootings. yet the vast majority of police officers around this country have never fired their weapon in the line of duty. all the rest of the police work that happens every day. some of it tedious, some of it rewarding. some of it horrible. but what we show on this program is what it is like to be a police officer. so sometimes it won't be as high octane as what you just saw there, as you know. it will be pulling over a car. saying, oh, you know the license doesn't match, pulling it over. looking it up. the officer doesn't know who's in the car, doesn't know what's going to happen but, you know
what, hey, it matches. >> the cars they know to pull over astound me, always something missing they spot. >> how many people drive without a license, how many people have drugs in their car. >> yeah, meth in the console. >> and how many people have outstanding warrants. >> yeah, the warrant thing is just crazy. >> the number of people who -- and look, and this is what police officers are dealing with and addressing mostly on a daily basis. look, we see a lot of duis, et cetera. but then again there will also be these incredibly high octane moments where we weren't expecting it and suddenly it looks like they're trying to pull over -- whoa, hang on, hang on, look at what's happening there. that's the say way the police see it. >> with an obvious plug to the mostly young people who sit shotgun in the police cars and jump out and follow the action themselves while wearing ballistic armor walk us from west to east, if you've watched the show, you can hear dan
saying we're tracking our eight departments. so starting in california, going to new england. what are the average -- this is tough, i know. >> i was like, wow, this is like a quiz. >> nine counties, probably your second coming from the west. >> we're not currently -- so basically we are always in eight departments. >> okay, oh, i didn't know that was a minimum. >> it used to be six. we're now in eight and we happen, right now, in a department in salenas, california, starting on the west coast, we are occasionally often in night county, nevada. we are in oklahoma with the highway patrol there. we are often in florida with one of the counties that are there. we are currently in indiana with a police department there. so we try to mix it up in terms of sheriff's departments, local police, highway patrol because
they do different kinds of policing and i think that the show -- see, it's very different than the show "cops" which is a highlight reel. here's a bunch of crazy stuff that happened today. this is showing it as the officers see it in these different departments. and so troopers who are on the highway patrol are going to be dealing with different issues than sheriff's departments. >> right. >> and different than in warwick, rhode island where they're going to be dealing with their own set of issues and one of the really interesting things is to see the community policing is how these officers get to know their communities. they'll know some of the people that they're pulling over. oh, yeah, no, i know this guy. >> i hear that a lot. thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. sir, always good to see you. >> limited good luck, especially on the saturday version. >> right, and the friday -- yeah. >> dan abrams, again, his brand new book is "theodore roosevelt the defense the courtroom to save his legacy."
last thing before we go, nancy pelosi mentioned this earlier today, members of congress and talking heads have danced around this topic for days, but this is what they're all talking about. the following lays out the peril of ignoring subpoenas from the committee of the congress. this is article 3 of the impeachment case of richard nixon. it reads in his conduct of the office of president of the united states richard m. nixon, contrary to his oath, faithfully
to execute the office of president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed has failed, without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by a committee on the judiciary of the house of representatives. the subpoenaed paipers and thins were deemed necessary by the committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental factual questions related to presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the president. in refusing to produce these papers and things richard m. nixon substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful
subpoenas of the house of representatives. thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the house of representatives. in all of this richard m. nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. wherefore richard -- with minor edits those are the central holdings of article 3 of the impeachment case against richard nixon who was convinced to resign during a very different time by three senior members of his own party from the house and senate who told the president he
simply lacked the support to continue. the quote from carl bernstein endures, it's something for everybody to think about, republicans were the heroes of watergate. and with that, that's our broadcast on this wednesday night. thank you so very much for being here with us. tonight -- >> we believe the president of the united states is engaged in a coverup. >> democratic leader accuses the president of a coverup. >> he is engaged in a coverup. and that could be an impeachable offense. >> donald trump has his richard nixon moment. >> i don't do coverups. >> tonight, why the president threw a tantrum at white house. >> it was very, very, very strange. >> why more democrats are using the i word. >> you can imagine? >> why nancy pelosi it appealing to a higher power.